Mick Haller wrote:Just saw a cargo truck unloading what appeared to be boxes of your exams. At the Oakland convention center. Hope they have enough power outlets this year

Go steal one for us?

"Wouldn't that be nice," said Reinhardt. Mick Haller then hired a professional thief to steal a box of the exams. Thanks to this, Reinhardt passed the exam, when he otherwise would have failed. Which of the following, listed in descending order, is the most serious crime Reinhardt can convicted of?

Mick Haller wrote:Just saw a cargo truck unloading what appeared to be boxes of your exams. At the Oakland convention center. Hope they have enough power outlets this year

Go steal one for us?

"Wouldn't that be nice," said Reinhardt. Mick Haller then hired a professional thief to steal a box of the exams. Thanks to this, Reinhardt passed the exam, when he otherwise would have failed. Which of the following, listed in descending order, is the most serious crime Reinhardt can convicted of?

A. LarcenyB. ConspiracyC. SolicitationD. No Crime

I think Emma is guilty of solicitation, but I don't think "wouldn't it be nice" is sufficient encouragement for accomplice liability (inexplicably not an answer choice ) so probably no crime until you actually get the stolen exam. Then you'd be guilty of receiving stolen goods?

Man, reading some of these essays on baressays gives me mixed feelings. Some of these 60's are well-written and spot every issue. Then, I'll come across a 65 that misses a ton of stuff and is incomplete in the analysis.

Foosters Galore wrote:Man, reading some of these essays on baressays gives me mixed feelings. Some of these 60's are well-written and spot every issue. Then, I'll come across a 65 that misses a ton of stuff and is incomplete in the analysis.

I really think that with the amount of essays and the amount of time to review them in, a "good" structure will get you more points than a well-written and thorough answer. By "good," I mean something that'll stand out to the weary eyes of a bar grader. Sign post everything, bold every issue, bold every conclusion, don't do big paragraphs, etc.

I would honestly devote 50 minutes to writing and 10 minutes to formatting everything so it's easy for the bar reviewer to read. There should be no creativity. Just straight up IRAC and bold the "issue name" (i.e., part performance of a land sale) and bold the conclusion. Put any preliminary analysis at the top (i.e., in community property what the basic presumptions are) and label it as such.

Foosters Galore wrote:Man, reading some of these essays on baressays gives me mixed feelings. Some of these 60's are well-written and spot every issue. Then, I'll come across a 65 that misses a ton of stuff and is incomplete in the analysis.

I really think that with the amount of essays and the amount of time to review them in, a "good" structure will get you more points than a well-written and thorough answer. By "good," I mean something that'll stand out to the weary eyes of a bar grader. Sign post everything, bold every issue, bold every conclusion, don't do big paragraphs, etc.

I would honestly devote 50 minutes to writing and 10 minutes to formatting everything so it's easy for the bar reviewer to read. There should be no creativity. Just straight up IRAC and bold the "issue name" (i.e., part performance of a land sale) and bold the conclusion. Put any preliminary analysis at the top (i.e., in community property what the basic presumptions are) and label it as such.

I generally agree with both of these comments. My goal is to avoid 55s by making sure my essay is easy to read format-wise, ignores irrelevant topics, and isn't too conclusory. So many of the 55s on baressays have irrelevant stuff or insufficient analysis. Whether you get a 60 or 65 seems to be some amount of luck. As long as you get thru 5 minutes without annoying the grader, you will probably get a 60, which is enough to pass with good MBE and PTs.

Most essays have like 3-5 main issues. So my plan is to have good headings, short and simple rule statements, argue BOTH SIDES for any disputed element and then conclude. It seems like good irAc will keep you away from the danger zone. Perfection is the enemy of the good here.

I haven't seen a wills question where the difference has even mattered. Then again, I haven't done that many practice essays.

Per Capita with Representation (default rule in California when not specified and for intestate succession):Find the nearest generation of issue with a living person. At that generation, distribute one share to each living person, and one share to each dead person who has living issue (and these living issue of that specific dead person share it equally among themselves)

Per Stirpes:Find living issue. Give one share to their ancestor nearest the testator (some dead child of the testator).

Per Capita at Each Generation:Do the procedure for PCwR, but then make sure everyone in the same generation takes the same amount by putting all of that generation's inheritance into a pool and then dividing it equally among them.

AND softey's explanation is much better than mine.

Am I even correct? Do dead people with no living issue ever take? No, right?

Reinhardt wrote:I haven't seen a wills question where the difference has even mattered. Then again, I haven't done that many practice essays.

Per Capita with Representation (default rule in California when not specified and for intestate succession):Find the nearest generation of issue with a living person. At that generation, distribute one share to each living person, and one share to each dead person who has living issue (and these living issue of that specific dead person share it equally among themselves)

Per Stirpes:Find living issue. Give one share to their nearest ancestor (some dead child of the testator).

Per Capita at Each Generation:Do the procedure for PCwR, but then make sure everyone in the same generation takes the same amount by putting all of that generation's inheritance into a pool and then dividing it equally among them.

AND softey's explanation is much better than mine.

Am I even correct? Do dead people with no living issue ever take? No, right?

Yeah, as you said, one cannot ignore representation. Issue of predeceased at level of distribution take in equal parts (edit: unless anti-lapse doesn't apply for some reason). Haven't seen any practice Qs more complicated than this.

Last edited by softey on Mon Jul 29, 2013 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I doubt that I'm very helpful but even so, I'd call the office of admissions and see what they say. For instance if you're supposed to take it in Santa Clara but there's a flight to LA, maybe they could accommodate. Alternatively, could fly somewhere there is a flight and then drive the rest of the way.

Fresh Prince wrote:Thanks guys. Also, what damages are doctors liable for in malpractice?

Is this just general compensatory damages for negligence? Those that are certain/non-speculative (relaxed for non-economic losses), caused by D's conduct, foreseeable at time of breach, unavoidable by P. And punitive if gross conduct?

Also, worst morning before the exam ever. Opened up my laptop at 8AM to check email. Heard some crazy ads going on. Ctrl+Alt+Del and serached for any tasks that were weird...couldnt find any. Ran three checks for malware, spyware, and other crap...couldnt find anything and the ads were sitll playing in the background. Ran to computer repair and some blessed soul was there. Sat me down, ran a few more tests, did some quick searches and fixed the problem with a system restore.

Also, make sure you are all there before 820 (at least in Santa Clara). Need to get there before if you want to use your laptop or else you will be forced to harndwrite. Had that happen to an amigo last year...he still passed.